7 ms·

This is a really bad summary of my judgments. I took the entire thing with a very simple set of rules: 1) the vehicle must protect it's human passengers first a

This is a really bad summary of my judgments. I took the entire thing with a very simple set of rules: 1) the vehicle must protect it's human passengers first and foremost, 2) the vehicle must avoid killing anyone if there are no human passengers, 3) the vehicle must not make changes to it's path if there are people in both paths. The breakdown says a lot about the law, my gender preferences, age preferences, fitness preferences, literally things I absolutely did not take into account. It is a bad methodology because it assumes the reasoning behind my decision is as complicated as the game itself.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hypertele-Xii 5y ago
The passengers do not allow the pedestrians to live or die. It's the pedestrians who allow the passengers to drive around among them in the first place. All vehicles must therefore protect pedestrians first. It's totally ok if only a few people have the courage to mount a vehicle that is dangerous to them. It's not ok if every human has to fear for their life on the street at all times.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  I get you, but the entitled upper crust, and particularly American, mindset is that we must continually sacrifice lives and wellbeing on the altar of the great open road. It is important to all the automobile and oil companies that we see driving as a right and necessity.
- Icko 5y ago
  That's a very solid argument. My reasoning was that the car must protect it's owners; but you changed my mind.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    The more I think on this, the more I change my position. I rebutted the comment you're responding to, but when considering the same scenario but with different specifics I came to their conclusion. Specifically, let's take out the car and make it an airplane flying over a populated area. Does the plane eject the pilot and crash in someone's house? I'd say no, the pilot knew the risk hopping in the plane, the guy at his breakfast table had no say. But then, what about if there is no crosswalk? Does the pedestrian still get to claim "I had no say in the street being there so I can cross wherever I want"? Does the passenger get to say "I assessed the risk taking into account nobody could cross here"? At what point do we say that the pedestrian also took a calculated risk? Fundamentally if we say " always protect the pedestrian" we don't care if there's a crosswalk or not. So at this point, I don't think there's a fundamental ethical axiom to be followed here, it is entirely situational. As long as we all know the rules beforehand and all calculate our own risks, any set of rules is OK. If we say "protect pedestrians at crosswalks, protect passengers otherwise" as long as the pedestrian knows this rule clearly, they're the one taking the risk. If we say "pedestrians can cross wherever they want whenever they want" we end up with the same scenario, everyone taking their own calculated risks. We just have to agree on the set of rules, whatever they are, which makes it an optimization problem, not an ethical one.
    - jdkee 5y ago
      The moving vehicle presents the mortal threat to the pedestrian not the other way around. Therefore it is more ethical to require the threatening agent to take more precautions or suffer more harm.
- naasking 5y ago
  > The passengers do not allow the pedestrians to live or die. It's the pedestrians who allow the passengers to drive around among them in the first place. All vehicles must therefore protect pedestrians first. I disagree. The car knows there are human passengers. The car does not know that obstacles it detects outside of it are necessarily people and not, say, fire hydrants (although it may have a probabilistic estimate of their "peopleness"). Therefore it should prioritize the lives that it knows are actual people.
  - hypertele-Xii 5y ago
    If a self-driving car can't tell a fire hydrant from a pedestrian, it has absolutely no business driving around people.
    - naasking 5y ago
      I disagree again. Obstacles are obstacles and still to be avoided. Avoiding obstacles while following the road rules is what driving is all about.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        Clipping a fire hydrant could be part of a legitimate strategy to emergency-stop. Clipping a pedestrian wouldn't be. A self-driving car needs to know the difference.
        naasking 5y ago
        > Clipping a fire hydrant could be part of a legitimate strategy to emergency-stop. Clipping a pedestrian wouldn't be. A self-driving car needs to know the difference. No, this is not a choice a car would have to make. A self-driving car would simply never drive into pedestrian-only zones. The only time pedestrians and other obstacles are an issue is in the driving lane, and the only sensible course of action is to brake and veer within the confines of the driving lane, and nowhere else. These are in fact the rules of the road.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  I get the argument, it really is a difficult ethical question. Your argument fundamentally boils down to "the car exists in the world and should move through it causing minimum disturbance to it" and that's a very sensible argument. But, quite simply, if I'm paying for a car or a ride, the machine serves me. My argument fundamentally boils down to "the car exists to serve it's passengers first and foremost" with the caveat that human lives are more important than animals. It should do everything in it's power to avoid hurting anyone, property be damned. But, when the choice is protect people in general or it's purpose for existing, I disagree with you. I'm always open to changing my mind however, and I don't dismiss your point of view out of hand.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    > But, quite simply, if I'm paying for a car or a ride, the machine serves me. If you're saying that people who can afford to take a car for a particular journey deserve to be protected over the pedestrians who can't in the edge-cases, then, if we average out enough of the details, this implies that richer people's lives are worth (slightly) more than poorer people's lives. You can draw a lot of conclusions from this logic, though, so I'm not sure how valid it is to just pick one property and generalise from it. (Wealth is applicable, but also able-bodiedness, age, climate consciousness, whether you feel safe walking streets alone at night…) It might be something to think about [edit: removed].
    - giraffe_lady 5y ago
      > but it's not something to judge people's ethical positions over. It is, actually. We don't have to be so so careful not to ever pass judgement. We are talking about the belief that people paying for a service are entitled to increased safety at the expense of others, who did not pay for it. It's ok to find that wicked and to say so.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        You probably have a point. Edited. Moving on to my next example, though, there are people who aren't able to be pedestrians because they have mobility impairments. Are they less worthy of life, just because they're using a vehicle as an accessibility aid?
- Ishmaeli 5y ago
  That was my reasoning as well. Whenever there was the option to kill the passengers, that's what I chose. The car's occupants are the ones introducing the risk of death to the scenario to begin with. There is no dilemma without the car. Interestingly, the summary at the end did not even allow for this conclusion. The evaluation anticipated that people might value the lives of animals over humans, but not those of pedestrians over passengers. It seems likely that this was designed by promoters of self-driving cars. No one would want to be a passenger in a car that was programed to prioritize the lives of pedestrians, so that was not even considered as a moral option.
- AbrahamParangi 5y ago
  This strikes me as immoral for the same reasons that organ harvesting is immoral: nobody owes their life to sustain another. Now you frame it as the passengers which are taking dangerous (to their own health) actions but you exclude that you (or someone) is standing in the middle of that equation, forcing cars to kill their owners- and this force will be necessary because no one will voluntarily purchase a vehicle so misaligned with their interests.
eckesicle 5y ago
My strategy was: minimise casualties to kids, people and then pets. If the choice is between equal damage to pedestrians or passengers then pedestrians take precedence. All else being equal don't intervene.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  I get this point of view too, but my problem with it is that it is based on a series of prejudices (kids are more valuable than adults) and not some fundamental ethical principle. Maybe I just like things that in theory tidy up nicely and practicality is a better approach, but I think ethical decisions should be able to be fundamentally summarized in principle without relying on specifics of the situation unless they fundamentally change the scenario in some way.
- psyc 5y ago
  This was my exact algorithm. Like GP said, it was jarring to read a bunch of conclusions that never entered my mind, and were a function of which examples they contrived. My reasoning about pedestrians is that they didn't sign up for self-driving, the people in the car did.
philipswood 5y ago
Ditto for me.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hypertele-Xii 5y ago

The passengers do not allow the pedestrians to live or die. It's the pedestrians who allow the passengers to drive around among them in the first place. All vehicles must therefore protect pedestrians first. It's totally ok if only a few people have the courage to mount a vehicle that is dangerous to them. It's not ok if every human has to fear for their life on the street at all times.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
I get you, but the entitled upper crust, and particularly American, mindset is that we must continually sacrifice lives and wellbeing on the altar of the great open road. It is important to all the automobile and oil companies that we see driving as a right and necessity.
Icko 5y ago
That's a very solid argument. My reasoning was that the car must protect it's owners; but you changed my mind.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  The more I think on this, the more I change my position. I rebutted the comment you're responding to, but when considering the same scenario but with different specifics I came to their conclusion. Specifically, let's take out the car and make it an airplane flying over a populated area. Does the plane eject the pilot and crash in someone's house? I'd say no, the pilot knew the risk hopping in the plane, the guy at his breakfast table had no say. But then, what about if there is no crosswalk? Does the pedestrian still get to claim "I had no say in the street being there so I can cross wherever I want"? Does the passenger get to say "I assessed the risk taking into account nobody could cross here"? At what point do we say that the pedestrian also took a calculated risk? Fundamentally if we say " always protect the pedestrian" we don't care if there's a crosswalk or not. So at this point, I don't think there's a fundamental ethical axiom to be followed here, it is entirely situational. As long as we all know the rules beforehand and all calculate our own risks, any set of rules is OK. If we say "protect pedestrians at crosswalks, protect passengers otherwise" as long as the pedestrian knows this rule clearly, they're the one taking the risk. If we say "pedestrians can cross wherever they want whenever they want" we end up with the same scenario, everyone taking their own calculated risks. We just have to agree on the set of rules, whatever they are, which makes it an optimization problem, not an ethical one.
  - jdkee 5y ago
    The moving vehicle presents the mortal threat to the pedestrian not the other way around. Therefore it is more ethical to require the threatening agent to take more precautions or suffer more harm.
naasking 5y ago
> The passengers do not allow the pedestrians to live or die. It's the pedestrians who allow the passengers to drive around among them in the first place. All vehicles must therefore protect pedestrians first. I disagree. The car knows there are human passengers. The car does not know that obstacles it detects outside of it are necessarily people and not, say, fire hydrants (although it may have a probabilistic estimate of their "peopleness"). Therefore it should prioritize the lives that it knows are actual people.
- hypertele-Xii 5y ago
  If a self-driving car can't tell a fire hydrant from a pedestrian, it has absolutely no business driving around people.
  - naasking 5y ago
    I disagree again. Obstacles are obstacles and still to be avoided. Avoiding obstacles while following the road rules is what driving is all about.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Clipping a fire hydrant could be part of a legitimate strategy to emergency-stop. Clipping a pedestrian wouldn't be. A self-driving car needs to know the difference.
      - naasking 5y ago
        > Clipping a fire hydrant could be part of a legitimate strategy to emergency-stop. Clipping a pedestrian wouldn't be. A self-driving car needs to know the difference. No, this is not a choice a car would have to make. A self-driving car would simply never drive into pedestrian-only zones. The only time pedestrians and other obstacles are an issue is in the driving lane, and the only sensible course of action is to brake and veer within the confines of the driving lane, and nowhere else. These are in fact the rules of the road.
betwixthewires 5y ago
I get the argument, it really is a difficult ethical question. Your argument fundamentally boils down to "the car exists in the world and should move through it causing minimum disturbance to it" and that's a very sensible argument. But, quite simply, if I'm paying for a car or a ride, the machine serves me. My argument fundamentally boils down to "the car exists to serve it's passengers first and foremost" with the caveat that human lives are more important than animals. It should do everything in it's power to avoid hurting anyone, property be damned. But, when the choice is protect people in general or it's purpose for existing, I disagree with you. I'm always open to changing my mind however, and I don't dismiss your point of view out of hand.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > But, quite simply, if I'm paying for a car or a ride, the machine serves me. If you're saying that people who can afford to take a car for a particular journey deserve to be protected over the pedestrians who can't in the edge-cases, then, if we average out enough of the details, this implies that richer people's lives are worth (slightly) more than poorer people's lives. You can draw a lot of conclusions from this logic, though, so I'm not sure how valid it is to just pick one property and generalise from it. (Wealth is applicable, but also able-bodiedness, age, climate consciousness, whether you feel safe walking streets alone at night…) It might be something to think about [edit: removed].
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    > but it's not something to judge people's ethical positions over. It is, actually. We don't have to be so so careful not to ever pass judgement. We are talking about the belief that people paying for a service are entitled to increased safety at the expense of others, who did not pay for it. It's ok to find that wicked and to say so.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      You probably have a point. Edited. Moving on to my next example, though, there are people who aren't able to be pedestrians because they have mobility impairments. Are they less worthy of life, just because they're using a vehicle as an accessibility aid?
Ishmaeli 5y ago
That was my reasoning as well. Whenever there was the option to kill the passengers, that's what I chose. The car's occupants are the ones introducing the risk of death to the scenario to begin with. There is no dilemma without the car. Interestingly, the summary at the end did not even allow for this conclusion. The evaluation anticipated that people might value the lives of animals over humans, but not those of pedestrians over passengers. It seems likely that this was designed by promoters of self-driving cars. No one would want to be a passenger in a car that was programed to prioritize the lives of pedestrians, so that was not even considered as a moral option.
AbrahamParangi 5y ago
This strikes me as immoral for the same reasons that organ harvesting is immoral: nobody owes their life to sustain another. Now you frame it as the passengers which are taking dangerous (to their own health) actions but you exclude that you (or someone) is standing in the middle of that equation, forcing cars to kill their owners- and this force will be necessary because no one will voluntarily purchase a vehicle so misaligned with their interests.

eckesicle 5y ago

My strategy was: minimise casualties to kids, people and then pets. If the choice is between equal damage to pedestrians or passengers then pedestrians take precedence. All else being equal don't intervene.

betwixthewires 5y ago
I get this point of view too, but my problem with it is that it is based on a series of prejudices (kids are more valuable than adults) and not some fundamental ethical principle. Maybe I just like things that in theory tidy up nicely and practicality is a better approach, but I think ethical decisions should be able to be fundamentally summarized in principle without relying on specifics of the situation unless they fundamentally change the scenario in some way.
psyc 5y ago
This was my exact algorithm. Like GP said, it was jarring to read a bunch of conclusions that never entered my mind, and were a function of which examples they contrived. My reasoning about pedestrians is that they didn't sign up for self-driving, the people in the car did.

philipswood 5y ago

Ditto for me.